American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Subcommittee on Facilitated Communication of the Ad Hoc Committee on Auditory Integration Training and Facilitated Communication, 1994, Technical Report on Facilitated Communication, Author
Cautious to the point of being negative report on FC. Recommends that FC is not used to make life decisions.
Given the flurry of activity in this area, it is reasonable to assume that significant new findings that challenge statements made in thisdocument may appear in the near future.
Arendt-Neilsen, L., Bech, B., Elbro, C., Jansen, E., & Klewe, L., 1991, Stavepladeundersøgelse. Kan staveplade anvendes som kommunikationsmiddel for egne viljebestemte udsagn? En undersøgelse af stavepladekommunikation mellem personer med vidgåaende fysiske/psykiske handicap og deres paedagoger [ Spelling board Examination. Can spelling boards be used as a means of communication of the patient’s self-determined statements? An examination of spelling board communication between people with severe physical/mental handicaps and their facilitators.] Copenhagen, Københavus Amts Social-og Sundhedsforvaltning.
Account of validation exercise with 17 clients from Danish group described in Johnson, 1988, and Johnson, 1989. See Klewe, 1993 (Articles), for an account of the exercise in English.
Committee of Inquiry to Investigate Claims About Children at St. Nicholas Hospital, 1980, Report, Victorian Legislative Assembly Paper no. 83, Melbourne, Government Printer
Report of a Government Committee set up under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter Eisen to rule on Rosemary Crossley's claims to having established communication though FCT with a number of children in St. Nicholas Hospital (sometimes referred to as the Eisen Committee).
Not one of the 11 children shows any evidence of a level of intellectual functioning beyond that of children of two and a half to three years of age. The 11 children function at levels indicative of severe or profound mental retardation. There is no valid evidence to support the claims that these children can communicate by the use of an alphabet board. Ms Crossley's claims that these children are capable of understanding and communicating highly sophisticated concepts are false. No child shows evidence of even the most elementary level of literacy or numeracy.
It has since been possible to establish by examining the Eisen Committee's papers under Freedom of Information legislation that the children did successfully past tests establishing the validity of their communication (see Dwyer). The Eisen Committee disregarded this evidence.
Cummins, R., & Bancroft, H., 1981, Supplementary Report to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry to Investigate Claims About Children at St. Nicholas Hospital, Melbourne, Authors
A partial rebuttal of the methodology of the Report, written from a psychological perspective before the FOI data became available.
The evidence from <parents, nursing staff and professionals> would have been likely to have been negative for a variety of reasons quite unrelated to the actual competencies of the children in question. ... ...it is hardly likely that the parents would expect to establish communication with their child, because to do so would mean an incorrect diagnosis. ... The nursing staff ... would certainly have been influenced by the expectation that the children were severely and profoundly retarded and would not therefore expect them to be capable of such communication. .... There are, in fact, recorded cases of handicapped people being able to communicate with only a small number of particular people. An example is the case of Joey Deacon... "Some people can communicate with anybody; some can communicate only with difficulty and with persons trained in specific facilitation skills; some can communicate only with immense dificulty and only with people who know them well, have particular skills, and have the understanding and insight necessary to establish rapport. Limitation on free communication does not mean, or even imply, the absence of any communication." ...the <Eisen> Committee seems never to consider in the Report if their attempts to establish communication failed for reasons other than the basic inability of the children to communicate per se. ... The Committee does not report seeking to establish what these reasons might be, does not report asking the child to communicate the reasons via Ms Crossley, and does not report determining at the outset whether the child wished to communicate with the Committee at all. They never, apparently, considered their imposition in expecting a 17 year old adolescent to perform at their whim. ...The accurate manipulation of a whole-arm movement, via an upper arm is very difficult, even if the arm is rigid. If the child has any voluntary control over the arm, then the origin of a movement becomes very difficult to determine, since any imposition of movement by the manipulator must interact with the voluntary movements initiated by the child. To pursue this further, if the child communicates by the use of any form of wrist movement, then a grip on the child’s upper arm will be quite ineffective in reliably directing such movement.
The Supplementary Report recommended further research on the children's communication abilities.
Geschke, N., 1993, Report on the investigation of a complaint of unjust dismissal made because of allegations made by facilitated communication, Melbourne, Government Printer
Report of an investigation into the dismissal of a man accused through FC of sexual abuse of a client. Concludes that FC communication invalid and man wrongly dismissed. Did not consult any users or supporters of FC; makes a number of misstatements; relies heavily on the work of Hudson, A. (see Journal Articles). Unreliable.
Geschke, N., 1994, Report on the Investigation of the Removal and Placement of a Client of Intellectual Disabilities Services Because of Allegations Made By Facilitated Communication, Melbourne, Government Printer
Report of an investigation into the removal of a IDS client from family following allegations through FC of sexual abuse. Concludes that FC communication invalid and client wrongly removed. Refuses to accept DEAL assessments as having weight against other negative assessments.
Intellectual Disability Review Panel (IDRP), 1989, Report to the Director General on the Reliability and Validity of Assisted Communication, Melbourne, Office of Intellectual Disability Services
A report commissioned from the Panel by the Victorian government on 'the method known as assisted <sic> communication and its use as an aid to communication for persons with an intellectual disability' and on 'a method to determine the validity and reliablity of communication which occurs using this technique.'. The Panel tested three DEAL clients using a confrontational naming test, of which one client established valid communication, and three using a message-passing test, of which all three established valid communication.
Neither major position in the dispute underlying the investigation was wholly supported. Some communications were valid and reliable through assisted communication without influence by the assistant. On the other hand some communication was influenced by the assistant. ... Most of the clients who participated in the studies had had their communication and intellectual functioning doubted by others over a long period. Three of the four clients whose communication was validated are currently attending regular schools, whereas they had been previously assessed as suitable for Special Schools or Special Developmental Schools. ... At least one of the clients had not attempted <communication> using other forms of augmentative or alternative communication, whereas others had attempted various alternative methods prior to the 'assisted communication technique'. All four clients whose communication was validated have now generalised their communication to a variety of people, although two of these are now only communicating with two or three people other than the regular assistant. During the course of the study, at least one client expanded the number of people with whom the client could communicate through assisted communication. The length of time the clients had been using assisted communication varied from five years to more than two years and one client can, at times, communicate independently... In summary, for the clients whose communication was validated, it appears that the use of the 'assisted communication technique' has greatly contributed to their progress in regular schools. The period of time the client has used or trained in the technique varies and there appears to be a gradual development in the degree to which clients generalize their communication to others.
Queensland Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, 1993, The Queensland Report on Facilitated Communication, Author, Brisbane
Report of extended (1 year) longitudinal study training 24 clients in the use of FCT and seeking content validation in the facilitated output. 21 of the 24 (87.5%) had their communication validated using content and structural analysis.
FC does improve the communication skills of some individuals. It is not a panacea for all people with severe communication impairment and neither does it enable people to communicate with chronologically age appropriate language in all situations and with all facilitators.
A person’s performance on standardised assessment provides a poor prediction of their likely response to a communication program using FC.
Wheeler, D, D., Jacobson, J., Paglieri, R., & Schwartz, A, 1992, An Experimental Assessment of Facilitated Communication, New York, New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
Also known as O. D. Heck study. Later published in Mental Retardation (see Journals)
I would very much appreciate any suggestions for additions to this bibliography. I can be reached by e-mail at cborthwick@vichealth.vic.gov.au.
Back to Contents page
Back to Facilitated Communication Training page
Back to DEAL Communication Centre page